Appeal No. 2000-0412
Application No. 09/046,200
window and keep a constant distance between the image sensor and the glass window
(for unevenness) as recited in the language of independent claim 1. (See reply brief at
page 1.) Independent claim 1 recites “at least two lubricating guide rails placed
between said contact image sensor and said glass window to reduce friction and to
reduce fluctuation in mechanical dimension between said contact image sensor and
said glass window when said contact image sensor slides along said glass window.”
We find that the examiner is viewing the single support rail of Itoh and the two support
rails of Tsuchiya as teaching this element of the claim. We disagree with the examiner
since the guide rails of Itoh and Tsuchiya are not between the sensor and the glass.
From the sweeping nature of the examiner’s rejection and the lack of any specific
teaching in the prior art to Itoh of the use or desirability of the use of plural guide rails
between the sensor and the glass, we find that the examiner has not set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness of the invention as recited in independent claim 1, and we
will not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed, and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-5 under
obviousness-type double patenting is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007